Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The purpose of this research project was to develop insight into the factors that influence judge and jury interpretations, perceptions and understanding of DNA evidence within the criminal justice system. The research question was addressed using a triangulated data collection methodology involving the following six-step process: three focus groups consisting of mock jurors, defence and prosecution lawyers; semi-structured interviews with Court of Queen's Bench justices; the distribution of 500 surveys to jury eligible community members; a scripted mock murder trial; a videotaped mock jury deliberation on the mock murder case; and an interview with the mock jurors after deliberations. The findings of this research outlines some of the changes lawyers, judges, and members of the general public feel are essential to their process of interpreting, perceiving and understanding DNA evidence. Some of these changes include encouraging jurors to take notes, giving jurors suggestions for conducting deliberations, providing juror notebooks, permitting jurors discussions during the trial, providing jurors with written instructions, and introducing a learning-style survey.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it